Ohio: ∆ is required to "prove by greater weight of the evidence" -> burden of proof on ∆

Ohio's Rule of Sevens

Children <7, incapable of negligence

7-14, presumed incapable, but may be rebutted by Plaintiffs

>14, presumed capable of negligence, but may be rebutted…

common law: Parents not responsible for the torts of their children. Of course, there are exceptions. In Ohio, exceptions are carved out through case law.

Ohio favors the direct test, but includes "some" foreseeability test.

In Ohio: not necessary that D should have foreseen particular manner of harm, but rather that harm was foreseeable.

 In Ohio, App. Ct. must hear cases in which separate trial courts issue contradictory rulings.

Plaintiff is barred from recovery by Assumption of Risk doctrine if the degree of fault is greater than the negligence of the defendant (51+%). Let a jury determine degree of negligence.

Majority of States incl. Ohio

Ohio is on record as ABOLISHING parental immunity WITHOUT RESERVATION --> hasn't really been tested.

Most jurisdictions, including Ohio, interpret a discovery rule into the Statutes of Limitations. 

Ohio--> No discovery rule

After Seder v. Knowlton, a “new” court was elected in OH; declared the statute of repose unconstitutional, then legislature passed a new one. Ongoing argument in OH.

In Ohio, statutes of repose for:

medical malpractice - 4 years

building designers - 10 years

products - 10 years

In Ohio: Medical Negligence: physician fails to meet professional standard of care. Average ≠ Standard

-> Ohio abandoned locality rule in 1976 to adopt the national standard of care.

Ohio: still has three categories, avoid willful or wanton misconduct. Does not have special category for criminal trespassers. CA merged I and L

Current law: 

-INVITEE is owed a duty "to exercise ordinary care and to protect the invitee by maintaining the premises in a safe condition." 

-To LICENSEES and TRESPASSERS, "landowner owes NO duty except to refrain from willful, wanton or reckless conduct which is likely to injure licensee or trespasser."

Constructive Notice: Defendant will be treated as having actual knowledge of a hazard if it was present for a significant period. 

--> Old theory; wasn't based on "self service." Too narrow for today's world. 

OH

Defendant will be treated as having actual knowledge of a hazard if Defendant operates in a manner making it likely that dangerous conditions will occur often. Negligence may be inferred, burden shifts to Defendant to prove that it acted reasonably. 

Ohio: Very insistent to stay with Constructive Notice, hasn't gone anywhere near Mode of Operation.

Ohio: Open and Obvious Doctrine is the law. If a danger is open and obvious, a plaintiff may not recover.

Ohio: Case law found that landlord's relationship to tenant's guest was same as to the tenant, an invitee. 

Common law rule: The social guest of the tenant is the licensee of the tenant. He is NOTHING to the owner.

Ohio: Landlord must make repairs and do what is reasonably necessary to keep the residence inhabitable. 

--> Under Impact rule, emotional distress had to be tied to a "real" physical injury.

Ohio: eliminated impact rule and requirement of physical manifestation. 

Ohio, et al: emotional distress must be severe and debilitating --> beyond what a normal person could live with. (but physical manifestation unnecessary for recovery) 

If not in the zone of danger, but saw someone else injured, can a plaintiff recover?

California: Yes, if meets Dillon factors: 1) Proximity 2) Observance (see or experience) 3) Relationship

Ohio does acknowledge NIED: must be serious, debilitating, and reasonably foreseeable. Located near scene as contrasted by another, observance of event, closely related (more flexible as written).

Ohio: Parent's required by statute to support children who can not support themselves past age of majority (severe mental retardation, severe physical deformities) 

-->Parents can sue because they have to support the child. 

Ohio, by statute, does not allow failure to abort as a cause of action. If one argues that if she would have had an abortion if she knew certain facts about the genetic defects of the child. NO WRONGFUL LIFE

Ohio: NO punitive damages for wrongful death. Ohio Constitution prohibits caps on damages for wrongful death.

Ohio common law: Furman's intentional blowing of smoke into Leichtman's face constitutes a battery.

In Ohio, damages caused by an intentional trespasser need not be foreseeable to be compensable; One who trespasses incurs risk of becoming liable for harm which is caused to the possessor of land by any conduct of trespasser no matter how otherwise innocent action may be.

AL criminal trespass category

In Ohio, strict liability if dog bites someone. Even the first time. Applies to owner, keeper or harborer. 

--> unless it bites a trespasser, someone intending to commit a crime, or someone teasing dog.

--> Not a "first bite rule" state; those jurisdictions allow the first bite to be free from strict liability, but not from negligence per se.

Majority uses an objective standard

What a reasonable person would have done

OH 

Majority-no more locality rule, doctor is held to national standard

CA created a new test-special relationship between either patient or victim creates a duty to warn

Majority position 

Two forms of modified comparative fault

50/50 OH

49/51 TE

Minority pure comparative negligence

KY CA NY

Originally in products liability plaintiff would have to be in privity with defendant

Attorney client relationships and malpractice still deal with privity

Issue is, should beneficiaries-not in privity-be able to sue?

OH is still strict privity, but states are moving in more liberal applications